From: Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 23 2005 - 15:17:58 CDT
> and I'm most curious about
> the lack of ``yeriy'', since it is really one unitary and standalone Old Slavic
> (and thus also Glagolitic) letter. If ``yeriy'' is in the Cyrillic part, it
> should also be in the Glagolitic part of Unicode.
Such analogies don't always hold.
At any rate, I expect the reason is based on ISO 6861, which
analyzes the "yeriy" as a digraph, namely <U+2C4F yeru, U+2C3B i>,
and associates it with the Old Cyrillic "yeriy", which would, of
course, be shown with an OCS version of a font, using U+044B
CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER YERU.
So the Glagolitic form is perfectly representable -- just using
a digraph instead of a single encoded character.
The burden of proof at this point would be for demonstrating that
a digraphic representation is insufficient, so that a separate
Glagolitic digraph for this would need to be added to the standard.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 23 2005 - 15:19:19 CDT